You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
Canada’s strength as a nation has historically rested on its ability to foster unity through shared values and a collective identity that embraces diversity. In recent years, however, identity-based movements, such as Pride celebrations, have increasingly emphasized group-specific grievances, sometimes at the expense of broader societal cohesion. While Pride has roots in advocating for equality, its shift toward queer activism—evident in events like the 2023 Toronto Pride parade, where political messaging dominated festivities—has led some to perceive it as divisive, challenging traditional norms. This essay argues that Canada should prioritize supererogatory values, such as compassion, civic duty, and national pride, to promote unity and counter the fragmenting effects of identity politics, while acknowledging the positive intentions of movements like Pride.
Pride celebrations, originally focused on inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community, have increasingly incorporated activist agendas that can alienate segments of the population. For example, the inclusion of controversial slogans and demands for systemic change during Pride events has sparked debates about whether these celebrations prioritize unity or ideological conformity. While supporters argue that Pride fosters inclusivity by amplifying marginalized voices, critics contend that its focus on specific identities can overshadow shared Canadian values, creating a perception of competing victimhoods. This dynamic risks fragmenting society, as public discourse shifts from collective goals to debates over who faces greater oppression, potentially undermining the moral and social cohesion that Canada has long championed.
In contrast, supererogatory values—those that inspire actions beyond basic moral obligations, such as volunteering, mutual respect, and national pride—offer a framework for uniting Canadians. Initiatives like the 2017 Canada 150 celebrations, which emphasized shared history and community service, demonstrate how focusing on collective identity can bridge divides across cultural and ideological lines. By promoting virtues like selflessness and civic responsibility, Canada can encourage citizens to prioritize the common good. For instance, community-driven programs, such as Calgary’s Neighbour Day, foster local engagement and reinforce a sense of belonging, countering the divisiveness of identity-based narratives with tangible acts of unity.
To address the risks of identity politics, Canada must balance the recognition of individual identities with a renewed emphasis on shared values. Identity politics, when unchecked, can foster resentment by framing societal issues as a zero-sum struggle, as seen in debates over funding for identity-specific programs versus universal public services. Acknowledging the positive contributions of Pride, such as its role in advancing legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community, does not negate the need to refocus on unifying principles. Policies that incentivize collective action—such as national volunteer campaigns or inclusive cultural festivals—can redirect public discourse toward shared goals, reducing the fractiousness of competing identity claims while respecting diverse perspectives.
In conclusion, Canada must navigate the tension between celebrating individual identities and fostering national unity by prioritizing supererogatory values. While Pride and similar movements have played a vital role in promoting inclusivity, their activist turn can inadvertently deepen societal divides. By investing in initiatives that emphasize compassion, civic duty, and a shared Canadian identity, such as community service programs or inclusive national celebrations, Canada can rebuild a cohesive social fabric. This approach does not dismiss the importance of individual identities but integrates them into a broader narrative of unity, ensuring that all Canadians feel connected to a common purpose and a stronger national community.
The sentencing of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old childminder from Northampton, to 31 months in prison for an offensive X post represents a disturbing shift toward authoritarian governance in the United Kingdom. On July 29, 2024, Connolly posted a message urging “mass deportation now” and to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers, in the context of the Southport attacks. As reported by the BBC, “The post was viewed 310,000 times before she deleted it within four hours.” Despite her guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the severe sentence, upheld on appeal in May 2025, prioritizes punishment over proportionality, signaling a state overreach that stifles free speech. This case exemplifies how legal mechanisms can be weaponized to suppress dissent, a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
The legal basis for Connolly’s conviction, Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, allows broad discretion in criminalizing speech deemed to incite racial hatred. The Crown Prosecution Service noted, “Connolly admitted publishing material which was threatening, abusive or insulting and intended to stir up racial hatred.” However, the post’s rapid deletion and Connolly’s lack of prior convictions suggest a lighter penalty, such as a fine, could have sufficed. Instead, the court imposed a near-maximum sentence, with the appeal judges stating, “There is no arguable basis for saying the sentence was disproportionate,” as per The Independent. This rigid application of vague laws to punish speech mirrors authoritarian tactics, where the state uses legal ambiguity to silence controversial voices and deter open discourse.
The societal impact of Connolly’s sentence creates a chilling effect on free expression, a cornerstone of democracy. The Free Speech Union criticized the sentence as “plainly disproportionate,” warning of its broader implications for free speech. Public reaction, including a fundraiser exceeding £50,000, reflects widespread concern that the punishment outweighs the crime. When a single post, however offensive, leads to over two years in prison for a first-time offender, it signals that the state values ideological control over individual liberty. This echoes authoritarian governance, where dissent is swiftly penalized to enforce conformity, pushing citizens toward self-censorship out of fear of legal consequences.
Comparisons to other cases highlight the disproportionate nature of Connolly’s punishment, reinforcing perceptions of authoritarian overreach. For instance, Philip Prescott received 28 months for violent disorder, while Haris Ghaffar got 20 months, despite their actions involving physical harm rather than words. The Independent reported, “Tyler Kay was jailed for 38 months for sharing Ms. Connolly’s post,” showing how the state extends punishment to amplifying speech, widening the net of censorship. This prioritization of controlling narrative over addressing tangible harm is a tactic seen in authoritarian regimes, where speech is deemed a greater threat than physical acts, undermining democratic principles.
In conclusion, Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence for an offensive X post marks a dangerous slide toward authoritarian governance in the UK. By leveraging vague legal provisions to impose harsh penalties on rapidly retracted speech, the state demonstrates a preference for control over individual rights. The chilling effect on free expression, disproportionate sentencing compared to violent crimes, and public backlash all point to a system prioritizing ideological conformity. As the Free Speech Union’s critique suggests, such precedents risk normalizing state overreach, eroding democratic freedoms and paving the way for further authoritarian measures under the guise of public order.
References:
1. BBC News. “Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post on X loses appeal.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v5926yeqro
2. The Independent. “Why was Lucy Connolly jailed for a tweet and why was her appeal dismissed?” https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/lucy-connolly-court-jail-appeal-b2754556.html
3. Crown Prosecution Service. “Updated sentence: Childminder admits inciting racial hatred over social media post.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-childminder-admits-inciting-racial-hatred-over-social-media-post
Frantz Fanon’s seminal work, The Wretched of the Earth, provides a framework for understanding decolonization as a radical, often violent, restructuring of society, which some activists in Canada have adopted to challenge the foundations of Western civilization. Fanon argues that decolonization is inherently disruptive, stating, “Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder” (Fanon, 1963, p. 36). In the Canadian context, this rhetoric is echoed in calls to dismantle institutions, reject Eurocentric histories, and prioritize Indigenous frameworks over established systems. A recent example is the controversy surrounding the Ontario Grade 9 Math Curriculum, where the inclusion of anti-racism and decolonization language—such as claims that mathematics has been used to “normalize racism”—led to significant backlash and eventual removal of such content (Global News, 2021). While presented as a pursuit of justice, this approach often amplifies societal fractures, pitting Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups against one another. By framing Canada’s history solely as a colonial oppression narrative, activists risk fostering resentment and division, undermining the shared societal cohesion necessary for a functioning democracy. This strategy aligns with Fanon’s vision of upending the status quo but ignores the complexities of Canada’s multicultural fabric, where reconciliation and cooperation have been attempted through dialogue and policy, however imperfectly.
The activist push for decolonization in Canada, inspired by Fanon’s ideas, often employs a rhetoric of moral absolutism that vilifies Western institutions while ignoring their contributions to global stability and progress. Fanon writes, “The colonial world is a Manichaean world” (Fanon, 1963, p. 41), casting the colonizer and colonized in stark, irreconcilable opposition. In Canada, this binary is reflected in demands to erase symbols of Western heritage—such as statues of historical figures or traditional educational curricula—in favor of an exclusively Indigenous narrative. For instance, Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada proposes radical changes, including the return of land to Indigenous peoples and reallocating 50% of natural resource export revenues to Indigenous nations (CBC Radio, 2017). Such proposals, while framed as reconciliation, can be seen as divisive and impractical by many Canadians, fostering a sense of cultural erasure among non-Indigenous Canadians while creating unrealistic expectations of systemic overhaul. By framing decolonization as a zero-sum conflict, activists inadvertently sow discord, weakening the social contract that binds diverse communities. Instead of fostering unity, this tactic mirrors Fanon’s call for a radical break, which may destabilize the very society it seeks to reform, playing into a broader narrative of internal collapse rather than constructive change.
Ultimately, the application of Fanon’s decolonization framework in Canada serves as a divisive tool that threatens the stability of Western societies by prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic coexistence. Fanon asserts, “For the colonized, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the colonizer” (Fanon, 1963, p. 93), a statement that implies destruction as a prerequisite for renewal. In Canada, this translates into activist strategies that reject compromise, demanding sweeping societal transformations without acknowledging the complexities of a nation built on diverse contributions. A historical example is the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, where concerns over Indigenous land rights led to a 10-year moratorium on the project, delaying economic development and highlighting how decolonization efforts can significantly impact community relations and national progress (Berger, 1977). By weaponizing decolonization to vilify Western values, these efforts risk eroding the democratic principles—freedom, rule of law, and pluralism—that have enabled Canada’s relative stability. Rather than unifying society around shared goals, this approach fuels polarization, aligning with a broader agenda to dismantle Western institutions from within under the guise of justice, leaving little room for reconciliation or mutual progress.
Key Citations
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
- Ontario removes anti-racism text from math curriculum preamble
- Ryan McMahon’s 12-step guide to decolonizing Canada
- Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry
- Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Proposals
- Decolonization at BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
- Catholic church north of Edmonton destroyed in fire
- School curriculum in Canada disputes view of math as objective
TL;DR – Judge positions and arguments based on their merit, not the political stripe of who happens to be saying it.
The Carney Liberals have cast themselves as vigilant guardians of democratic accountability, sounding alarms about the creeping threat of right-wing fascism undermining Canada’s institutions. However, their decision to prorogue Parliament in 2025 reveals a stark hypocrisy, as it silenced legislative debate and evaded scrutiny at a pivotal moment. While they might argue this was a pragmatic response to a crisis requiring a reset of the legislative agenda, the lack of a clear, specific rationale and their history of using prorogation to sidestep controversies suggest political expediency over necessity. This move, which stalls the democratic process they claim to protect, casts doubt on their commitment to transparency and accountability.
Their refusal to table a federal budget in 2025 further erodes their credibility as champions of responsible governance. By skipping this cornerstone of fiscal accountability, they’ve left Canadians without clarity on economic priorities during a time of global uncertainty, prioritizing political maneuvering over public trust. The Liberals might counter that global economic volatility demanded delaying the budget to ensure fiscal prudence, but their failure to provide interim fiscal updates or a timeline for a future budget undermines this claim. Such an omission hampers Parliament’s oversight role, contradicting their stated dedication to open and accountable governance.
The Liberals’ warnings about authoritarian threats ring hollow when their own actions weaken the democratic norms they vow to uphold. Proroguing Parliament and bypassing a budget are not mere procedural hiccups but deliberate retreats from accountability that echo the authoritarian tendencies they condemn. They may argue that these steps are minor compared to global populist threats, but this defense falters when their governance choices invite skepticism about their motives. For a party campaigning on safeguarding democracy, the Carney Liberals’ actions—prorogation and budget avoidance—reveal a troubling disconnect between their rhetoric and reality, fueling doubts about their true priorities.
In today’s polarized world, the oppressor/oppressed lens shapes how we talk about morality, justice, and power. From social media to workplaces, this framework—dividing society into oppressors (those with power) and oppressed (those without)—is often used to judge right from wrong. It’s a powerful tool, rooted in the struggles of marginalized groups, but is it enough to guide our moral decisions in a complex society? In this blog series, I’ll argue that while the oppressor/oppressed lens has been vital for naming injustice, it falls short as a universal moral compass. Over the next few posts, we’ll explore its origins, its modern applications, its limitations, and what a better framework might look like.
Where It All Began: The Roots of the Lens
The oppressor/oppressed lens emerged from thinkers and activists who sought to understand systemic inequality. One of its earliest articulations came from the Combahee River Collective, a group of Black feminist activists in 1977. In their groundbreaking statement, they argued that Black women faced “interlocking” oppressions—race, gender, class, and sexuality—that couldn’t be separated. Their work inspired the concept of intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.
What Is Intersectionality?
Intersectionality is the idea that different forms of oppression (like racism, sexism, or classism) don’t exist in isolation—they overlap and compound each other. Crenshaw used the metaphor of a traffic intersection: a Black woman standing at the crossroads of race and gender faces dangers from multiple directions, often ignored by systems that focus on only one form of discrimination. Intersectionality asks us to see how identities interact to shape unique experiences of privilege or marginalization.
A Real-World Example
Consider a Black woman named Maya applying for a tech job. She’s highly qualified but faces rejection. A hiring manager might unconsciously favor candidates who fit a “tech bro” stereotype (often white and male). Maya’s race and gender intersect, creating barriers that neither a white woman nor a Black man might face to the same degree. If she complains, HR might dismiss her concerns, saying the company is “diverse” because it hires women or Black men. This misses how Maya’s specific experience—being both Black and a woman—shapes her reality. Intersectionality helps us understand and address these layered injustices.
Around the same time as the Combahee River Collective, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire was shaping the oppressor/oppressed lens through his 1970 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire argued that oppression dehumanizes both the oppressed and the oppressor, and liberation comes through “critical consciousness”—understanding and challenging power structures. His problem-posing education model encouraged dialogue to awaken learners to their class-based oppression, rejecting the “banking model” where students passively absorb facts. However, Freire’s focus on class consciousness has drawn criticism. By prioritizing ideological awakening, his methods often de-emphasize factual knowledge and rigorous, open-ended critical thinking. Critics argue that his approach risks replacing one form of dogma with another, steering learners toward a Marxist view of oppression rather than fostering truly independent analysis. While empowering, Freire’s framework laid the groundwork for a binary lens that can oversimplify complex moral realities.
These thinkers made the oppressor/oppressed lens a revolutionary tool for giving voice to those silenced by racism, sexism, and classism. But even then, its binary framing—amplified by Freire’s ideological focus—had limits, often overlooking the messy realities of human experience.
Intersectionality Today: Misuse and Oversimplification
Intersectionality and the oppressor/oppressed lens are now mainstream, from corporate diversity trainings to online activism. But as they’ve spread, they’ve often been misused in ways that undermine their original purpose. In some settings, intersectionality is reduced to a checklist of identities—race, gender, sexuality—used to rank people as “more oppressed” or “less oppressed.” On social media, this can turn into a kind of moral one-upmanship, where individuals are judged not by their actions but by their demographic categories. For example, a viral X post might call out someone as “privileged” based solely on their race or gender, ignoring their personal struggles or context. This flattens intersectionality’s nuance into a rigid hierarchy of victimhood.
In corporate or academic spaces, the lens is sometimes applied dogmatically. Take a workplace DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) workshop: employees might be told to “check their privilege” based on broad categories like whiteness or maleness, without considering class, disability, or other factors. This can alienate people who might otherwise support justice efforts, fostering resentment instead of understanding. By treating the oppressor/oppressed lens as a moral absolute, these applications risk shutting down dialogue and oversimplifying complex issues.
The misuse of intersectionality doesn’t negate its value—it’s still a vital tool for understanding layered injustices like Maya’s. But when it’s wielded as a blunt instrument, it can divide rather than unite, turning a framework for empathy into a tool for judgment. This is why we need to question the oppressor/oppressed lens as a universal moral guide.
What’s Next?
The oppressor/oppressed lens, with intersectionality at its core and Freire’s class focus as a foundation, was born from real struggles. But its ideological roots and modern misapplications show it’s not the whole story. In the next post, we’ll explore how the lens is used today, drawing on thinkers like Robin DiAngelo and John McWhorter. Then, we’ll dig into its deeper limitations with insights from bell hooks and Joe L. Kincheloe. Finally, we’ll propose a more nuanced way to navigate morality in a complex world.
Have thoughts or experiences with intersectionality or the oppressor/oppressed lens? Share them in the comments—I’d love to hear your perspective.
Sources: Combahee River Collective Statement (1977), Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Mapping the Margins” (1989), Peter Roberts’ “Paulo Freire and the Politics of Education” (1999).
Jacques Ellul’s Definition of Propaganda Compared to Common Understanding
Jacques Ellul, in his seminal work Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1962), presents a nuanced and expansive definition of propaganda that diverges significantly from its common understanding. Commonly, propaganda is perceived as deliberate, often deceptive messaging by governments or organizations to manipulate public opinion for political ends, such as wartime posters or authoritarian regime broadcasts. Ellul, however, redefines propaganda as a sociological phenomenon inherent to modern, literate, industrial societies, encompassing not only overt political campaigns but also subtle, pervasive influences embedded in media, culture, and technology. This essay contrasts the popular perception of propaganda as obvious, old-style war propaganda with its modern, subtler form, clarifying how propaganda works today by marrying truth to a lie, providing truth out of context, or being misleading in ways that mask the propagandist’s true intent.
The Common Perception: Old-Style Obvious War Propaganda
Most people envision propaganda as the blatant, heavy-handed messaging seen during wartime or under authoritarian regimes. This “old-style” propaganda includes iconic examples like World War I and II posters—think “Uncle Sam Wants You” or “Loose Lips Sink Ships”—or Nazi broadcasts demonizing enemies. These efforts were characterized by:
- Clear Intent: The goal was unmistakable, whether to boost morale, recruit soldiers, or vilify opponents.
- Emotional Appeals: Fear, patriotism, or anger were leveraged to provoke immediate reactions.
- Obvious Bias: Exaggerations, stereotypes, or outright lies made the manipulation evident to a critical observer.
This type of propaganda was easy to spot due to its overt nature and reliance on simplistic, often deceitful narratives. The common perception thus frames propaganda as a tool of specific historical moments—wars or dictatorships—rather than an ongoing, everyday phenomenon.
Modern Propaganda: A Carefully Curated Truth
In contrast, modern propaganda operates with far greater subtlety, blending truth and deception in ways that obscure its manipulative intent. Rather than relying on obvious lies, today’s propaganda is a “carefully curated truth” that passes without immediate recognition of the propagandist’s agenda. Jacques Ellul emphasizes that effective propaganda must resonate with reality, using facts as its foundation while shaping them to serve a specific purpose. Here’s how it works:
- Marrying Truth to a Lie: Facts are paired with distortions to create a compelling, yet misleading, narrative. For example, a political ad might highlight a candidate’s charitable donations (truth) while implying they single-handedly solved a social issue (lie), glossing over broader context.
- Truth Out of Context: Information is presented accurately but stripped of critical details. A news report might cover a protest by focusing solely on isolated acts of violence, ignoring the peaceful majority or underlying grievances, thus skewing public perception.
- Strategic Framing: Emotional appeals and selective emphasis guide interpretation. An advertisement might use scientific data—like “9 out of 10 dentists recommend”—without clarifying the sample size or methodology, nudging consumers toward a biased conclusion.
Unlike old-style propaganda, modern forms avoid outright falsehoods because they risk exposure in an information-rich world. Instead, they exploit trust in factual reporting, slipping past scrutiny by appearing credible. As Ellul notes, “Propaganda must be based on facts… but facts are not enough; they must be interpreted” (1962, p. 52). This curation ensures propaganda aligns with pre-existing beliefs, making it harder to challenge.
Examples of Modern Propaganda
- Media: A news outlet reports a politician’s speech verbatim but highlights only inflammatory snippets, shaping audience outrage while claiming objectivity.
- Advertising: A skincare brand touts a product’s “clinically proven” benefits, omitting that the study was small, biased, or inconclusive.
- Social Media: Viral posts share real statistics—like crime rates—but frame them to stoke fear or division, leaving out mitigating factors.
These tactics illustrate how modern propaganda thrives on partial truths, emotional resonance, and strategic omissions, distinguishing it from the blunt lies of wartime posters.
Propaganda’s Inseparability from Modern Society
Ellul argues that propaganda is not just a tool of specific actors but a sociological phenomenon inherent to literate, industrial societies. Several factors make it pervasive today:
- Information Overload: With mass media and digital platforms, people face too much data to process critically, relying on simplified narratives that propaganda provides.
- Literacy and Technology: Educated populations trust written or broadcast information, while advanced tools—like targeted ads or algorithms—amplify propaganda’s reach.
- Complexity of Life: Industrial societies create uncertainty, driving individuals to accept curated truths that offer clarity, even if manipulated.
Unlike the common view, which ties propaganda to deliberate campaigns, Ellul sees it as a structural feature of modernity, thriving in democracies as much as authoritarian states. “Propaganda is a necessity for the functioning of a technological society,” he writes (1962, p. 87), highlighting its role in managing mass attitudes.
Conclusion
The popular image of propaganda as obvious, old-style war messaging—think posters and wartime broadcasts—captures only a fraction of its reality. Jacques Ellul’s broader definition reveals propaganda as a subtle, pervasive force in modern society, where truth is curated, contextualized, or paired with deception to serve hidden agendas. By contrasting the overt manipulations of the past with today’s sophisticated blending of fact and misdirection, we see that propaganda’s power lies in its disguise: a “carefully curated truth” that slips past without examination. Understanding this shift invites us to question not just blatant lies, but the subtler influences shaping our world daily.
Works Cited: Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. Translated by Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner, Vintage Books, 1973.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…